Time Limit on Onaah

Bava Metzia (4:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 months ago

In this week's Mishnayot we learnt about onaah. Onaah refers to
the prohibition violated when a product is sold at a price, beyond a
limit, above or below the standard price. We learnt that if the item is
sold for more (or less) than a sixth of the standard price then the sale
is null and void. If however the price differs by exactly a sixth, then
the sale is valid, but the difference is returned. The Mishnah teaches
that there is a time limit within which the wronged party can claim
onaah; that is the time it would take one to show the product to a
merchant or relative that understands the market of such products.
Considering that the law of onaah is biblical, what is the basis for
the time limit?

The Bartenura explains that if one delays longer than this time
period, he has forgone his claim for onaah. According to this
understanding, there is no clash between the law of onaah and the time
limit, since after the time limit expires, it is considered as if the
wronged part forwent his claim for onaah.

The Sefer HaChinnuch (337, s.v amru) however writes that having the
ability to claim onaah, to retract on a sale, indefinitely would
complicate matters. Consequently, the Chachamim introduced a time
limit for interest of commerce. According to this understanding, we find
another instance where Chachamim can institute overriding takanot
(decrees) in monetary matters for the greater good.

Is there a practical difference between these two different
understandings of the time limit?

To answer this question, we shall ask another. What would be the ruling
in a situation where the purchaser experienced a situation beyond his
control (ones) that prevented him from showing the product to someone,
within the time limit. The Shulchan Aruch (ChM 237:7) rules that he
would still be able to claim onaah. The Tur derives this position
from the Rosh who explains that if the purchaser was lazy and did not
show the product to someone, then he has forgone his claim to onaah.
The Tur understands from the Rosh that this is only if he was
"lazy". If however it was a case of ones, the ruling would be
different.

The Haghot Imrei Baruch however directs our attention to the Tosfot.
The Tosfot (49b, s.v. bichdei) asks that the Mishnah appears to
provide a variable time limit for claiming onaah. Sometimes the
distance or time to an expert may be longer than others and the
Chachamim generally do not provided subjective measures within
halacha. The Tosfot therefore suggest that a fixed limit was
selected based on the general time it would take to get a professional
opinion. The fixed limit is independent of the variables in an
individual case. The answer of the Tosfot suggests that since the time
limit is fixed, the time limit applies even in the case of ones.
Irrespective of the purchasers circumstances, once the limit expires,
onaah may no longer claimed.

Once could suggest that one way of explaining the debate regarding
ones (and whether the time limit is variable) is based on the two ways
of understanding the onaah above. According to the first
understanding, that once the time limit expires it is considered as if
the purchaser has forgone his claim, then it makes sense to consider the
circumstances of the purchaser as time goes on. In a case of ones it
follows, that the purchaser still maintains the right to claim onaah.

According to the second understanding however, that the time limit was
fixed in the interest of commerce, one could understand that the limit
was fixed irrespective of individual circumstance. Consequently, the
time limit would not be variable and any claim of ones would be
irrelevant. Therefore, once the time limit expired, then one could no
longer claim onaah under all circumstances.